Google, Facebook And Twitter Ordered To Delete Photos By UK Law Enforcement
from the the-internet-police dept
It seems that, once again, the UK is going censorship crazy and not realizing how that only attacts more attention to that which they're trying to censor. This time, it involves some photos that were posted online of one Jon Venables, who at the age of 10, murdered 2-year old James Bulger, in a rather horrifying story. Venables was released from jail in 2001, at the age of 19 (though he has since gone back to prison). Photos of Venables, now 30 years old and apparently using a new identity to avoid his past, appeared online. The UK apparently wants a right to forget the fact that Venables did what he did, and seems to think that there should be no additional public consequences. Attorney General Dominic Grieve has said he's going to take legal action against anyone posting the photo, and has gone even further in telling Google, Facebook and Twitter that they need to magically delete any and all such photos that appear via their services.It appears that at least Twitter has pushed back a little bit, pointing out that it will take down images if the law requires it upon notification, but that it cannot and will not monitor every one of its users to prevent them from posting the image:
Sinead McSweeney, Twitter's director of public policy in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, said she did not wish to be drawn into commenting on individual accounts.You can argue that it's unfair for Venables, under his new identity, to be connected back to what he actually did, though I'm not sure I buy that argument. But, it's taking it to a whole different level to then seek to prosecute people for merely posting a photo to their social network feed. They then take it to an entirely ridiculous level to order that third party service providers actively police and censor this particular photo. And, of course, all this is doing is calling much, much, much, much more attention to the photo. A lot more people are now seeing the photo than would have if people had just ignored the original postings.
She added: "We work with law enforcement here in the UK. We have established points of contact with law enforcement in the UK where they communicate with us about content, they bring content to our attention that is illegal, and appropriate steps are taken by the company. You may read into those words what you wish in context of the current [issue]."
McSweeney, who appeared alongside officials from Google and Facebook, said Twitter could not be expected to proactively monitor what is published on its social network across the globe each day. She added: "It's important that people increasingly understand that online is no different to offline: what is illegal offline is illegal online."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, dominic grieve, free speech, james bulger, jon venables, photographs, secondary liability, uk
Companies: facebook, google, twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
the order to proactievly delete the photo is a bit too far, I will admit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
His case was screwed up since the beginning (the ECHR ruled that he didn't receive a fair trial, the UK courts had to intervene in reducing his sentence after the then Home Secretary decided to increase it for political gain) and the UK is being really cautious about what happened.
In general, though, the UK has a fairly strong "rehabilitation of offenders" system whereby there are processes under which old offences can be forgotten (although still on record), particularly when children are involved.
But in this case it is more likely to be about protecting him from the mob reaction (there's footage of the original trial around somewhere, and it is deeply disturbing) if his identity is compromised (and the costs the government will have to go through to hide him again).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, what he did was indeed horrific and no punishment will ever right the crime. However, the issue of "additional public consequences" is troubling.
Although it was undoubtedly unequipped to deal with the issue of a pair of child murderers who were themselves still children, they have served the punishment given by the courts. Under their original identities, there was absolutely no chance of them ever being given the chance of a normal life, and would constantly be under the threat of violence for them and their families. Some would say that this is OK considering their crime, but a new identity was necessary for them to truly have a chance at rehabilitation. Some might argue there's no point to even trying that in this case, but unless you support summary execution of children for doing what they did, they have to be rehabilitated in some way.
Now, one of them has been identified and these pictures are being shared. They are being shared for one clear purpose - a vigilante attack. People sharing these photos want someone to recognise this person and retaliate for his crime. This is mob mentality, with all the dangers that poses (false identification either on the photo or in the street, for example), and is clearly an incitement to violence. This isn't someone having an embarrassing photo shared or a piece of content they wanted to sell - this is people baying for blood.
From what I've seen, it's usually the same photo or photos being shared. From that, it's not difficult for a filter to be put into place for those specific photos, although I certainly. Whether law enforcement should be threatening prosecution to those posting the photos is questionable, but this isn't merely a case of sharing something people don't like. This is a clear call to violence related to a case that's still shocking and emotional for a great many people 20 years later.
It's amazing that so many years after the crime (which led to a lot of attempts at censorship at the time when the tabloids tried to blame Child's Play 3), its repercussions are still being felt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds familiar
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only problem I can see is jurisdictional overreach if they stry to enforce it outside of the confines of the UK legal jurisdiction which interestingly in this instance could also be the greater commonwealth as well. When they try to get someone outside of the UK to remove that is when people (especially in the US) have to think and look at the ethics of actually posting the pictures whether or not the infamous First Amendment comes into it or not (incitement overrides it in some instances anyway)
The repercussions of the murders are still being felt any time someone talks about doli incapax, and I shudder at the thought of what would of happened if at the time the two children in question were under 10 yrs old. Thankfully they weren't.
As for Mike's statement of "additional public consequences" I think that is due to the major cultural differences between the USA and its basically punishment only system of incarceration (even for minors) compared to the Commonwealth role of rehabilitation for all, especially minors to stop such things as recidivism and to allow entry back into the community understanding that you have 'done your time'. Though the creep of the 'punishment at any price' philosophy into other Western countries is troubling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Agreed, it really does get very problematic when you consider the international nature of the services. Can a UK enforcement agency block material from the rest of the world? If not, then such blocks are easily routed around. If so, that opens dangerous precedents. Few people have friends just in one country - who gets the photos blocked? And so forth... Even without considering the different levels of free speech, it's a very difficult situation.
"Thankfully they weren't."
Barely. 7 months before, and the murderers would both have been 9.
As for the punishment, it's a hugely difficult question there too. I have no idea how to address it, quite honestly, but to say that people deserve punishment after their sentences have been carried out is extremely troubling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: PaulT on Feb 28th, 2013 @ 4:36am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: PaulT on Feb 28th, 2013 @ 4:36am
Plus, even that would be a dangerous thing in this day and age led by tabloid scare tactics. We are talking about the country where a paediatrician was attacked because some morons couldn't tell that "paediatrician" didn't mean "paedophile" http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society
If idiots are capable of that, correctly identifying a child murderer is essentially a call to violence in many peoples' minds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People need to let it go they cannot hold a fucking ten year old accountable their entire life. I mean shit I can hardly remember being ten and I've completely forgot the mindset I had back then.
They're making a mess of this and they should know once something is on the internet THERE IS NO DELETING IT EVER!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
While it's laudable to give him a second chance, or rather a third chance by now, should we risk the well being of some innocent child who might happen to cross his path, to give him that chance?
That's not to justify any retribution from to public, it's to explain why many people are unhappy that he's walking around freely. Posting his picture is probably more an expression of discontent with the way the justice system works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...and, yet, -at least in the states- their home location is PUBLICIZED by the gummint AFTER they have 'paid their debt to society' (such that their 'debt' is NEVER paid, is it ?)
in fact, they will FORCE the EX-offender to register their location, INFORM THEIR NEIGHBORS they are in that neighborhood, etc, etc, etc...
do you think that might be used for 'revenge' too ? ? ?
(ps i am against this sort of continuing punishment AFTER they've served their punishment...)
2. are the kids killing kids not adults now ? ? ? so, do we *screen*, protect, shield EVERYONE who did something 'bad' in the past and *someone* *may* *possibly* want to exact revenge ? ? ?
wouldn't that include approximately half the planet ? ? ?
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WELL, what responsibility does Mike have for "Masnicking" this story?
And so I'd say that the larger question is how Mike in his little way (plus numerous others amplifying almost non-stories) helps feed irrelevant "news" frenzies while ignoring vastly larger ones.
For reasons above, Mike should have just left this alone. Besides that, this is -- not incidentally -- just about the least worrisome story involving Google that one can find, shows it under attack, not as spying on everyone...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WELL, what responsibility does Mike have for "Masnicking" this story?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WELL, what responsibility does Mike have for "Masnicking" this story?
> doesn't matter had sex
> whine anyway
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WELL, what responsibility does Mike have for "Masnicking" this story?
WELL, what responsibility does out_of_the_blue have for "bluing" this story with his inane ramblings?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WELL, what responsibility does Mike have for "Masnicking" this story?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WELL, what responsibility does Mike have for "Masnicking" this story?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Be aware of Venalbles
Then they catch him with paedophilia material on several occasions.
The only picture I want to see of him is in the deepest darkest dungeon doing several life sentences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Be aware of Venalbles
Are you crazy? So if a 10-year-old girl "consents" to having sex, it isn't stat. rape?
That dagger cuts both ways. Be careful what you wish for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No right to be forgotten
If you commit a public act, your conviction and sentencing is a public fact. You have no right of privacy to force others to forget facts already publicly known.
Just because the state thinks that you have paid your debt to society does not mean that other private actors should be barred from discussing and retelling what happened.
First, even a rehabilitated convict may still be a recidivist. I have a right to warn my family and children against associating with him.
Second, in Europe where self-defense is a nullity, and you have no effective right to bear arms, voluntarily disassociating yourself from potentially dangerous criminal is the only recourse.
If you can't legally retell the fact that Joe Smoe was a pedophile, terrorist or murderer, you can't exercise your right of self-protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No right to be forgotten
There's a game often played by children in the UK known as Chinese whispers, which I think is called telephone in the US. There's a real danger there.
"Second, in Europe where self-defense is a nullity"
Probably a lie, unless you think that "Europe" means "stuff you read in the Daily Mail about the UK".
"you have no effective right to bear arms"
You do realise that "Europe" is not a single country and different countries have different rules regarding firearms, right?
"If you can't legally retell the fact that Joe Smoe was a pedophile, terrorist or murderer, you can't exercise your right of self-protection."
What if you're lying, inciting people to attack innocents due to mistaken identity or destroying the lives of their children in return (see the "paedophile" link I posted above)? Your right to self protection may harm others - where's their protection?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No right to be forgotten
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No right to be forgotten
It seems you have a strange idea of self protection when you are so worried about someone that you think you can claim pre-emptive (with intent to harm) self defence.. Self defence, even in the USA doesn't work like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No right to be forgotten
Says the anonymous coward; who may or may not be a convicted criminal or as yet undetected lawbreaker - we just don't know, and therefore we cannot protect ourselves!
Mike, please can you reveal who this anonymous commenter is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Eugene Volokh over at The Volokh Conspiracy has convincingly explained why such a right to have public speech about past convictions censored is problematic.
And please explain why you think the First Amendment is infamous. The First Amendment grants the highest level of speech protection in the world.
And posting a picture of a former criminal is not incitement to violence. It's stretching the definition of incitement to speech which presumptively should be outlawed without concrete proof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When you understand why I snort laughingly at your statement (with the rest of the planet) then you will understand why your statement is total parochial bullshit. Though Understanding how you think by what Eugene states, which as much as I respect and appreciate the guy, he is highly biased towards American jurisprudence then any other US constitutional scholar.
The First Ammendment is ok but it seems not even your citizens, government, or religious institutions even use it to its fullest. Or am I sorely missing something about your patriot act, TSA, color of law problems with LEO's ... need I go on?
As for posting a picture, by itself no it doesn't incite.. But the context and state of mind of why the person posted it, and others are being told to pass it on for 'the sake of the children' is absolutely grounds for incitement and/or harassment charges under UK, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, EU, and believe it or not even USA laws (though the bar is higher in USA).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The internet never forgets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The internet never forgets.
In the UK, we don't allow trial by media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
weaponry since those same weapons are illegal (as they should be) to use when there is NO claim of threat to life."
So you are saying that self-defense is not illegal, while acknowledging that owning and using illegal means to defend yourself nullify that right.
Priceless.
"It seems you have a strange idea of self protection when you are so worried about someone that you think you can claim pre-emptive (with intent to harm)
self defence.. Self defence, even in the USA doesn't work like that."
Nonsense, you have a First Amendment association right to preemptivly defending yourself by staying away from persons with criminal convictions, and this right also extends to warning others by communicating truthful information.
"What if you're lying, inciting people to attack innocents due to mistaken identity or destroying the lives of their children in return (see the "paedophile"
link I posted above)? Your right to self protection may harm others - where's their protection?"
This is not incitement but defamation. You surely know that incitement to violence is also illegal in the US.
Falsely telling that someone is a criminal living at address XX is defamation but not incitement.
Incitement to violence has to be imminent and direct. If I merely publish a picture of someone, I am not responsible for inciting the observer to violence unless there is a proven intend to cause the violence.
This is blackletter law that you surely must know about.
"Says the anonymous coward; who may or may not be a convicted criminal or as yet undetected lawbreaker - we just don't know, and therefore we cannot protect
ourselves!"
Surely you can. You have a free speech right to out a potential or former criminal.
Are you so dense that you can't understand the difference between private decisions to retell a truthful fact and state attempts to censor speech?
What we have in the UK is a criminal conviction which validity the government does not regret and the state's attempt to erase the fact from public memory by threat of legal action.
Don't you find that troubling?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
pass it on for 'the sake of the children' is absolutely grounds for incitement and/or harassment charges under UK, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, EU,
and believe it or not even USA laws (though the bar is higher in USA)."
You realize that if this is correct under UK law, it would be sufficient to prosecute all disseminators under current incitement law which certainly provides for harsher penalties.
But incitement is not the government's justification for attempting to have the information vanish.
Intend to incite violence would in any case have to be proven on the part of the publisher. But the government's theory is broader and troubling. The government's argument seems to be that you can't legally republish a fact doubting the state's determination that a former criminal or inmate is no longer dangerous or morally blameworthy.
If you want to defend the UK's policy, you should honestly address the government's arguments for its actions. And its justification is not that republishing the speech constitutes incitement to violence but rather that it interferes with its public policy of rehabilitating criminals.
The government may be right or wrong in its determination, but it should not have the power to do it by censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
International law
pass it on for 'the sake of the children' is absolutely grounds for incitement and/or harassment charges under UK, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, EU,
and believe it or not even USA laws (though the bar is higher in USA)."
A followup comment:
The internet makes the most permissive law the �default standard because you can't censor speech at the border without shutting down the internet.
Even without the First Amendment, you can't seriously even believe that all other nations would enforce a UK, German or Austrian right to be forgotten.
There are all sorts of local public policy arguments why such an attempt is unworkable and dangerous.
The only avenue left is suppression of the speech as incitement to unlawful retaliation. Under Brandenburg such a prosecution would certainly fail unless the speaker intended to incite imminent lawless action.
If I read an angry letter to the editor in the newspaper, and I kill a politician, the author is not guilty of incitement unless there is a proven intend to cause violence.
There are American court cases in which victims of violence have tried to sue makers of violent video games for negligence.
Even if not considering the First Amendment, it's commonsense that criminal incitement should be limited to speech calling for violence and not cover speech merely arousing hatred or distrust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plus, even that would be a dangerous thing in this day and age led by tabloid scare tactics. We are talking about the country where a paediatrician was
attacked because some morons couldn't tell that "paediatrician" didn't mean "paedophile""
So speech should be subject to a heckler's veto or lowest common denominator?
If I publish a cartoon of a religious figure, and his followers go on a rampage, my speech should be censored because some of the recipients lack or refuse to exercise their rational faculties?
It's a very dangerous logic that would provide less protection for controversial speech.
And this is not really about defamation or half truth but republishing truthful information.
The fact that someone has a criminal conviction is a fact unlike the speculating that he is still dangerous. If I publish the fact that an individual got a conviction some years ago, and a recipient draws the inference from the fact that the convict is still dangerous, it's a reason for punishing the party doing the violence not for punishing or censoring me for relaying the fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Stick to the facts: a specific individual is being targeted with threats. This isn't a heckler or a religion being mocked - it's one person being specifically targeted with things that amount to death threats. Are you saying that we should allow death threats because "freedom of speech". Even the holy US 1st amendment has a "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" exception to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
is that this is from the hate speech laws.�"
Please elaborate on why this is flatly wrong.
As far I know, it's not illegal to extract information about someone's criminal past from publicly accessible sources (worldlii.org or newspaper archives) and republish these facts in a blog or on Twitter.
Are you arguing that once a convict has paid back his debt to society, it's suddently is illegal to reuse and republish this information?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some of you guys sound like its OK that this person bashed in the head of another kid with a brick. That he should be forgiven and should be able to live next to your family.
WTF? This proves to me that some posters here argue simply to argue. There is absolutely no justification for censoring people warning others about a known murderer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But all it really proves is that people can have differing opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Orders
> he's going to take legal action against
> anyone posting the photo
Too bad he can only do that for people in England. I can post all the photos and details of Venables I want to. British judges and their orders have no jurisdiction over me in California.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Venables Photo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
False analogy
It is falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre thereby causing violence that is the crux of the argument.
Merely publishing the fact that someone has a prior *valid* criminal conviction is not incitement by any stretch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: False analogy
Except that's definitely NOT the context in which I've personally seen these photos published by some people. There's a specific call to violence associated with most of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: False analogy
We should buy him lunch and dinner./s
Apparently the law isn't living up to peoples expectations of punishment and deterrence. Perhaps this is a stepping stone to having the laws changed. So far though, they are looking at the wrong laws. He needs to be locked up for his own safety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plus, for all you people abroad saying that you should share it because the UK Legal system has no rights or powers over you, think of how arrogant and spiteful you are being. You would be outraged if a foreign government interfered in your countries legal system, why should it be any different for foreign citizens? Just show some respect for everyone else in the world and let other countries deal with their own issues themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> so be it. Put him on trial, send him to
> prison - but you can't connect his new
> identity to his old one.
Yes, I can, because I'm not in Britain or subject to British law. The fact that my tweets, web postings, etc. are accessible to British citizens doesn't mean British law applies worldwide.
> Plus, for all you people abroad saying that
> you should share it because the UK Legal
> system has no rights or powers over you,
> think of how arrogant and spiteful you are being.
Really? I'm being spiteful because I refuse to let a foreign government do that which my own government isn't even allowed to do?
> You would be outraged if a foreign government
> interfered in your countries legal system
No I wouldn't. I'd recognize that my country's laws only apply to my country. I wouldn't presume to believe or assert that my government can constrain the behavior of everyone in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]